Performance Management:
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Performance Management:

on

  • 876 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
876
Views on SlideShare
876
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Performance Management: Performance Management: Document Transcript

    • Performance Management: Implementation Status of Employee Evaluation Systems A report by the District Performance Auditor November 2008 PORTLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS PORTLAND, OREGON
    • PORTLAND PUBLIC SCHOOLS 501 North Dixon Street / Portland, OR 97227 Email: rctracy@pps.k12.or.us Richard C. Tracy Telephone: (503) 916-3258 District Performance Auditor Memorandum To: Board of Education From: Richard C. Tracy, District Performance Auditor Date: November 19, 2008 Re: Performance Audit – Performance Management: Implementation Status of Employee Evaluation Systems Attached is my audit report on the Implementation Status of Employee Evaluation Systems at Portland Public Schools. The report shows that the district has made significant progress over the past two years to design and implement employee performance evaluation systems. Additional effort is needed to ensure that all employees participate in a sound, fair, and timely performance evaluation. The Superintendent has reviewed the report and her written response is included on pages 35 and 36. I would like to thank the District management and staff for their assistance and cooperation in conducting this audit. I look forward to meeting with you at upcoming Board and committee meetings to more fully discuss the report’s findings and recommendations. Thank you for your ongoing support. cc: Carole Smith Jollee Patterson
    • Contents SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 3 Performance management at PPS School accountability and the role of Human Resource departments Audit objectives, scope, and methodology RESULTS .........................................................................................................................11 Significant progress made in implementing employee evaluation throughout the district Most employees are satisfied with new evaluation practices Opportunities to improve various elements of PPS employee evaluation systems Observations about the teacher evaluation process RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................31 MANAGEMENT RESPONSE TO AUDIT ......................................................33 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................37 A. Summary of literature research......................................................................A-1 B. Compliance test results .................................................................................B-1 C. Survey instrument: Non-represented employees.......................................... C-1 D. Survey instrument: Licensed administrators ................................................. D-1 Performance Management Audit November 2008
    • Performance Management Audit November 2008
    • SUMMARY E mployee appraisal systems play an important role in the management of public and private organizations. Annual employee evaluations provide a formal mechanism for assessing accountability for job performance and a method for encouraging and supporting the growth and development of employees. This audit reviews the current implementation status of Performance Management at Portland Public Schools – a multi-year effort to build an ongoing employee appraisal system throughout the district. I found that the district has made significant progress over the past two years in designing and implementing processes for evaluating the performance of its employees. Overall, 82 percent of the 4,150 employees that were due evaluations in FY07-08 received a performance appraisal. Over 279 administrative, management, and school principals participated in a new evaluation process last year and over 3,105 unionized employees including teachers, nutrition workers, and bus drivers received evaluations. However, not all employee groups received evaluations at the same rate. Over 90 percent of all teachers received evaluations on-time but only 73 percent of non- represented employees and 38 percent of school administrators (principals) received evaluations by established deadlines. Late or incomplete evaluations were caused by several factors including staff turnover, reassignments, and new processes implemented for the first time last year. Overall, non-represented employees (managers and administrators) and school administrators were satisfied with the new evaluation processes. Most of these employees responding to a survey found the processes useful, understandable, and fair but had suggestions to clarify and simplify the processes in the future. In addition, while the district has made progress in improving evaluations for represented employees, additional effort is needed to implement common performance management principles for all represented groups. The teacher evaluation process has changed little since it was implemented in 1980. In order to help the district strengthen its performance management initiative, I make recommendations on page 31 of this report to improve employee performance evaluation processes. Performance Management Audit < 1 > November 2008
    • Performance Management Audit < 2 > November 2008
    • INTRODUCTION O ver the past several years, the Portland Public School district has embarked on several initiatives to improve its overall performance. One initiative involves the ongoing assessment of all employees in order to create a high performance culture in support of the central goal of improving teaching and learning. This report is an assessment of the progress made in implementing employee evaluation systems throughout the PPS district. Performance management at PPS B eginning in 2006, the Human Resources department of the Portland Public School district initiated several major efforts to transform the management and operations of human resource services. These efforts included revising the HR organizational structure, streamlining business processes, and creating a more customer- oriented culture. One of the major elements of this HR transformation was the implementation of a comprehensive system of employee evaluation. This system is defined as follows: “Performance management is the ongoing assessment of employees to drive performance at the individual and team level, in order to ensure that the organization meets its strategic goals and objectives.” 1 According to management officials, performance management is viewed as a key component of the district’s overall accountability system which is directed at improving student outcomes through high quality teaching and learning in every classroom. The objectives of performance management are: • High performance: create a high performance culture at all levels that enables excellent outcomes for all students 1 Transforming HR at PPS: Update , Human Resources, August 2006 Performance Management Audit < 3 > November 2008
    • • Employee development: clearly communicate expectations, build and enhance supervisor and employee relationships, and reinforce continuous learning and development • Uniformity and fairness: offer a common appraisal system for all employees consistently applied across the organization and deliver accurate and fair measurement and performance assessment As shown in the chart below, the Human Resource managers view the performance management system as a cycle of actions involving five key components. PPS performance management system cycle GOAL SETTING REVIEW OF SELF PERFORMANCE Ongoing coaching and REFLECTION OUTCOMES feedback PERSONAL PERFORMANCE DEVELOPMENT PLAN EVALUATION In order to implement the performance management system, HR management chose to begin the reform effort in phases. The first employee groups to undergo new and revised appraisal processes were non-represented employees (executive, management, and central administrative staff) and licensed administrators (principals, vice-principals, and assistant principals). These two groups are to be followed by groups represented by unions, including teachers, custodians, nutrition workers, and maintenance workers. It is anticipated that some of these changes will require renegotiation of existing labor agreements. Performance Management Audit < 4 > November 2008
    • The movement to performance management also requires HR to develop new evaluation tools, administrative processes, and support mechanisms. 2 Specifically, HR has a goal to develop a comprehensive system of employee evaluation that includes the following revised elements. Desired elements in revised PPS employee evaluation system Online, paperless forms to streamline submittal and completion, and improve record keeping Automated tracking and reporting to encourage full compliance with appraisal requirements and deadlines Evaluation tools based on defined job competencies and objective performance standards Standardized evaluation tool, clear requirements, and common expectations for application and use Ongoing training and HR staff support on how to provide and receive appraisals Emphasis on employee growth and development Source: Human Resources, PPS 2 Performance Management at PPS, Human Resources, May 2008 Performance Management Audit < 5 > November 2008
    • School accountability and the role of Human Resources departments T he implementation of a performance management at PPS is consistent with the new emphasis on public school reform and improvement currently underway in many districts throughout the country. My review of academic and professional literature indicates that leading public school districts are driven by increasing demands for performance improvement by federal, state, and local policy makers. These demands for increased performance have lead to the development of more rigorous and comprehensive accountability systems. While improved student achievement is the primary measure of school performance, literature suggests that all functional units and the employees within these units contribute to this goal and should be held accountable as well: “. . . accountability should reach into every corner of the district . . . Textbooks must be available when school starts; transportation systems must deliver students to school on time; broken equipment must be repaired quickly; everything must work. If accountability does not spread down into the classroom and up into the central office, schools cannot fairly be held accountable.” 3 According to the United States Office of Personnel Management, performance management is a systematic process that involves: 4 • Planning work and setting expectations • Continually monitoring performance • Developing the capacity to perform • Periodically rating performance in a summary fashion • Rewarding good performance My readings also indicate that school district human resource departments should play a critical role in performance management and in the implementation of 3 Urban School District Accountability Systems, Education Commission of the United States, Center for Reform of School Systems, December 2003 4 A Handbook for Measuring Employee Performance – Aligning Employee Performance Plan with Organizational Goals, Workforce Compensation and Performance Service, US Office of Personnel Management September, 2001 Performance Management Audit < 6 > November 2008
    • accountability systems. HR departments play a major role in recruiting, selecting, hiring, evaluating, rewarding, and sanctioning employees. The efficiency and effectiveness of HR departments significantly influence the degree to which high quality employees make it into classrooms, maintenance shops, lunchrooms, and bus driver seats. Research indicates that HR departments should, but often do not, play a major role in advancing the overall goals of improving teaching and learning. Most importantly, there is a general consensus that the most important thing schools can do for student achievement is to provide a good teacher. 5 Ultimately, it appears from literature that I reviewed, that performance appraisal and employee evaluation systems are part of an overall accountability system that is focused on improving teaching, learning, and school performance. In addition, HR departments play a vital rule in the accountability system and in school improvement. 5 From Bystander to Ally: Transforming the District Human Resources Department, Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs, University of Washington, April 2004 Performance Management Audit < 7 > November 2008
    • Audit objectives, scope, and methodology T his audit had four primary objectives as follows: • To identify and evaluate academic research and professional literature on school reform, performance improvement, and employee appraisal and evaluation • To assess the progress made by PPS to develop and implement a comprehensive system for employee performance evaluation • To identify the strengths and weaknesses of recently implemented evaluation systems for non-represented employees and school administrators • To review the status of existing performance evaluation processes used for teachers and other represented employee groups To address these objectives I reviewed professional literature and academic research on school accountability systems, school improvement efforts, human resource management, and school employee evaluation. I interviewed employees in Human Resources, the Office of Schools and High Schools, Business Affairs and Operations, and Teaching and Learning. I also held a focus group with principals and held individual interviews with each school and high school director. In addition, with the help of the Human Resources department, I conducted a compliance test to determine if all employees due evaluations in FY2007-08 actually received an evaluation on time. I also reviewed hard-copy evaluations at various locations throughout the district to document the degree to which evaluations were completed on-time. I also cooperated with Human Resources to administer a satisfaction survey of non-represented employees and principals who participated in the new evaluation system in FY2007-08. I met with PPS management officials and with representatives from the Portland Association of Teachers. I limited my review to the assessment of employee evaluation systems at PPS. I did not evaluate other responsibilities of the Human Resources department including processes for recruiting, selecting, hiring, training, disciplining, or terminating employees. My review of the teacher evaluation was limited to a comparison of traditional teacher evaluation approaches, as used at PPS, to new approaches recommended by research. I also limited my compliance testing and satisfaction survey to the FY2007-08 academic year. Performance Management Audit < 8 > November 2008
    • This audit was conducted in accordance with my 2008 Audit Plan approved by the Portland School Board. It was performed during the months of April, May, June, July, and August of 2008. I conducted this audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that I plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for my findings and conclusions based on my audit objectives. I believe the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for my findings and conclusions based on my audit objectives. Performance Management Audit < 9 > November 2008
    • Performance Management Audit < 10 > November 2008
    • RESULTS T he Portland Public School district has made significant progress over the past year in designing and implementing annual evaluations of the performance of its employees. Over 279 administrative, management, and school principals participated in a new evaluation process last year. In addition, 3,105 unionized employees including teachers, nutrition workers, and bus drivers received performance reviews. Overall, 82 percent of the 4,150 employees of the school district that were due an evaluation in FY07-08 received some type of performance appraisal. While non-represented employees and principals expressed general satisfaction with new evaluation methods, there are several opportunities to streamline and adjust elements of the new evaluation processes to make them more timely, useful, and easier to complete. In addition, despite the progress made to revise and improve the evaluations for some represented employees, additional effort is needed to implement performance management principles for all represented employees throughout the district. Compared to current practices recommended by research, the teacher evaluation system employed at PPS does not employ new evaluation practices. Significant progress made in implementing employee evaluation throughout the district T he Portland Public School district has implemented a number of different employee performance evaluation processes for its various employee groups. Some processes have been in place for a number of years and others have been recently designed and implemented. HR managers indicate that over the next few years they hope to review and revise all the employee evaluation systems so that they are more standardized, automated, and focused on employee growth and development. The table below shows the performance evaluation processes currently in place at PPS. The table categorizes employee groups by those that are represented by unions and those that are not represented. As shown by the table, the evaluations processes differ in various ways – some are newly implemented processes, some are on-line and automated, and some are conducted annually and others biennially. Performance Management Audit < 11 > November 2008
    • Summary of PPS Employee Evaluation processes, by employee group Evaluation GROUP in place? New? Automated? Frequency Non-represented employees yes yes yes annual Licensed probationary: annual administrators yes yes no contract: every 2 years Represented: probationary: biannual Teachers yes no yes contract: every 2 years Licensed non-classroom probationary: biannual staff * yes no yes contract: every 2 years Office, educational. and clerical support yes no yes every 2 years Building Maintenance yes no no annual Bus mechanics, warehouse workers, truck drivers, TV services no - - - Custodians yes yes no annual Nutrition workers yes no no annual Bus drivers yes yes no annual * Media specialists, psychologists, social workers, counselors, and other licensed staff As shown above, non-represented employees and the licensed school administrators underwent new evaluation processes in FY2007-08. HR worked with representatives from these two groups to develop revised approaches with some common features including performance evaluation based on defined competencies and/or performance standards, integrated up-front goal setting, and preparation of employee development plans for the subsequent year. To implement these new processes, several training events were held to introduce the methods and processes to supervisors and employees. PPS managers within the Facilities Services and Nutrition Services have also revised the employee evaluation forms for probationary custodians and nutrition workers that are Performance Management Audit < 12 > November 2008
    • represented by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). However, these revisions were designed and implemented in a more decentralized fashion with limited support and direction from Human Resources. Managers from HR and these units indicated to me that additional efforts are needed in the future to ensure these processes also include common features such as goal setting, job competency standards, and employee development plan. Managers have not yet designed or implemented new evaluation processes for teachers, other school based employees, building maintenance employees, or bus drivers. The performance evaluation process for teachers, counselors, media specialists, and other non-classroom staff is the subject of labor negotiations currently underway between the Portland Association of Teachers and PPS management. Managers also told me that other performance evaluation processes will undergo review and revisions within the next few years including processes for maintenance employees represented by the District Council of Trade Unions, bus drivers represented by Association of Transit Unions, and clerical and other support staff represented by the Portland Federation of Teachers and Classified Employees. Compliance with evaluation timeliness mixed for FY07-08. In order to determine if the various evaluation processes in place at PPS are being given to employees on-time as planned, I conducted a compliance test for evaluations due in FY2007-08 for each employee group. As shown in the table below, compliance with evaluation deadlines was mixed in FY2007-08. While the percent of evaluations provided on time for probationary and contract teachers was high, 98 percent for probationary teachers and 91 percent for contract teachers, compliance for the newly implemented processes for non-represented employees and licensed administrators was lower. Seventy-two percent of non- represented employees received evaluations on-time but only 32 percent of licensed administrators received timely evaluations. In total, of the 4,150 employees that were due evaluations in FY07-08, approximately 3,375 or 81 percent received the evaluation by the established due date. A number of factors may have affected the degree to which various employees groups received timely evaluations. For example, staff turnover at the executive management level affected the completion of evaluations for school and high school area directors. Similarly, licensed administrator retirements and reassignments may have affected the completion of some evaluations for principals and vice principals. Also, unfamiliarity with on-line processes and tools could have affected timely completion. Finally, it appears that the press of other work and the inability to plan and allocate sufficient time to meet deadlines contributed to missed deadlines Performance Management Audit < 13 > November 2008
    • Employee Evaluation Compliance Test: Percent of evaluations completed on-time, by PPS employee group (FY2007-08) * GROUP Total due Total on-time Total late*** % on time Non-represented employees 325 238 87 73% Licensed admin (principals) 108 41 67 38% Contract teachers (PAT) 1,164 1,061 103 91% Probationary teachers (PAT) 978 958 20 98% Temporary teachers (PAT) 154 111 43 72% School educational, office and support staff (PFTCE) 797 677 120 85% Maintenance workers (DCU) 74 12 62 16% Custodians (SEIU) 293 155 138 53% Nutrition workers (SEIU) 175 124 47 72% Bus drivers** (ATU) 79 7 72 9% TOTAL 4,147 3,384 759 82% Source: Auditor analysis and HR People Soft data * Does not include various employees that are not covered by established evaluation process or employees not due for an evaluation during FY07-08. ** Bus drivers also receive at least one annual driving safety evaluation. In FY07-08, 78 drivers or 99 percent received the driving safety evaluation. *** The total number of late evaluations includes both evaluations that were completed past the due date and evaluations that were not completed at all. Performance Management Audit < 14 > November 2008
    • Most employees are satisfied with new evaluation practices I n order to learn about the experiences of those employees who participated in the new evaluation processes for non-represented staff and licensed administrators, I coordinated with Human Resources in the administration of a post-evaluation satisfaction survey. All non-represented employees received a web- based survey during the week of August 11 and all licensed administrators received the survey the week of August 25. 6 See Appendices C and D for survey questions for the non-represented employees and the licensed administrators. Non-represented employee survey responses. As of September 12, 2008, 126 out of a total of 325 non-represented employees had responded to the survey – a response rate of 39 percent. Forty-eight (38 percent) of the respondents were classified as directors or managers while 78 (62 percent) were classified as individual contributors in various staff or line positions. As shown in the table below, 56 percent of non-represented employees responding to the survey were satisfied with the evaluation process as it was implemented in FY07-08. About 18 percent were not satisfied with the process. In addition, a large majority of respondents (69 percent) found that the job competencies used in the evaluation process were relevant to roles performed at PPS. Two percent of the respondents believed that the competencies were irrelevant. Almost 66 percent of non-represented employees believed that the feedback given by supervisors was meaningful and 58 percent found the evaluation process useful for identifying areas for growth and development. About 51 percent of respondents that participated in a formal goal setting with their supervisors found the goal setting process to be useful but 22 percent found it to be not useful. The goal setting process was not entirely successful in helping respondents understand their department goals or the district goals more clearly. About 25 percent believe that the goal setting process did not help them clearly understand the department goals and 35 percent felt the goal setting session did not help them clearly understand district goals. 6 Although the survey responses are valid responses for those choosing to respond to the survey, the survey was not based on a random sample of employees, consequently the respondents were self-selected and their answers may or may not reflect the opinions of other employees that did not respond to the survey or the opinions of all employees. Performance Management Audit < 15 > November 2008
    • NON-REPRESENTED EMPLOYEES Ratings of elements of the evaluation process in FY2007-08 USEFUL/ NOT USEFUL/ EXTREMELY USEFUL NOT AT ALL USEFUL Goal setting process 51% 22% MEANINGFUL/ NOT MEANINGFUL/ EXTREMELY MEANINGFUL NOT AT ALL MEANINGFUL Supervisor feedback 66% 9% USEFUL/ NOT USEFUL/ EXTREMELY USEFUL NOT AT ALL USEFUL Ideas for growth and development 58% 16% MOST OR ALL MOST OR ALL RELEVANT NOT RELEVANT Relevant job competencies assessed 69% 2% SATISFIED/ NOT SATISFIED/ EXTREMELY SATISFIED NOT AT ALL SATISFIED Overall satisfaction 56% 18% A separate set of questions for supervisors, indicated that supervisors found the new evaluation process clear and easy to understand, easy to use online, and useful for setting goals with employees. Supervisors that responded found that most elements of the evaluation form to be useful in assessing and supporting employee performance. Overall, 60 percent of the supervisors responding to the survey believe that the new process is useful way to help employees improve their performance. Licensed administrator survey responses. As of September 12, 2008, 37 of 108 principals and vice/assistant principals had responded to the survey — a 34 percent response rate. Thirty-two of the respondents were identified as principals and 5 of the respondents were vice-principals or assistant principals. As shown in the table below, only 38 percent of the respondents were satisfied with the performance evaluation process. Fifty percent were moderately satisfied and 12 percent of the respondents indicated that they were not satisfied. Performance Management Audit < 16 > November 2008
    • LICENSED ADMINISTRATORS Ratings of elements of the evaluation process in FY2007-08 USEFUL/ NOT USEFUL/ EXTREMELY USEFUL NOT AT ALL USEFUL Goal setting 60% 15% SOLID/VERY SOLID NO UNDERSTANDING/ UNDERSTANDING NO UNDERSTANDING AT ALL Helped supervisor gain understanding of your work 59% 12% MEANINGFUL/ NOT MEANINGFUL/ EXTREMELY MEANINGFUL NOT AT ALL MEANINGFUL Received meaningful feedback 73% 0% USEFUL/ NOT USEFUL/ EXTREMELY USEFUL NOT AT ALL USEFUL Identified areas for growth and development 60% 13% FAIR/VERY FAIR NOT /NOT AT ALL AND OBJECTIVE FAIR AND OBJECTIVE Fair and objective 60% 7% SATISFIED/ NOT SATISFIED/ EXTREMELY SATISFIED NOT AT ALL SATISFIED Overall satisfaction 38% 12% School administrators also felt that the new Leadership Proficiency Standards contained in the new evaluation form described their work moderately to extremely well. Only a few administrators indicated that the proficiency standards did not describe their work. However, a higher percentage of principals indicated that they did not fully understand the Leadership Proficiency Standards. Principals, vice principals and assistants also believed that the check-in meeting with their supervisor during the year was moderately to extremely useful, and that the self-reflection process was generally a useful process. Performance Management Audit < 17 > November 2008
    • Performance Management Audit < 18 > November 2008
    • Opportunities to improve various elements of PPS employee evaluation systems B ased on my interviews with PPS staff, review of survey results, and analysis of professional literature, there appear to be several opportunities to strengthen and improve the evaluation processes currently administered at PPS. Managers within operating departments and human resources are aware of many of these opportunities and intend to take several improvement efforts over the next year. The sections that follow discuss some overall findings on employee evaluation at PPS, followed by specific ideas for changes in the new non-represented and licensed administrator processes and for evaluation practices administered to several represented groups. Most of these findings are directly related to the planned elements of HR’s desired employee evaluation system. On page 25, I present a separate discussion of the teacher evaluation process. GENERAL FINDINGS APPLICABLE TO EVALUATION PROCESSES Goal setting not consistently performed. Goal setting at the beginning of the year is viewed as a positive exercise by most all staff that I talked to. However, goal setting is not always conducted or it is held too late in the year to be a valuable tool for supervisors and employees. Several respondents to the non-represented and licensed administrator surveys indicated that the purpose of the goal setting was not clear and that goals needed to be more closely aligned with district or school level goals. While I did not evaluate how goals are used and acted upon, a few survey respondents felt that supervisors never discussed or revisited goals accomplishments once established. In addition, others felt that the full benefit of the goal setting exercise was not fully achieved because it did not receive sufficient priority. On-line evaluation preparation and submittal still incomplete. The ability to prepare, review, and submit annual performance evaluations on-line is viewed as a positive, labor-saving practice. Currently, non-represented employees, teachers, non- classroom staff, and school office and clerical staff are tracked and recorded automatically through Human Resources electronic data base system. Automated tracking and reporting of these evaluations make compliance monitoring easier and record keeping more reliable. However, other employee groups including custodians, nutrition employees, and maintenance prepare evaluations manually and are not yet part of the Human Resource data base. Consequently, determining completion compliance is much more difficult and record keeping of completed evaluations is not always complete. Expansion of automated record keeping to all existing systems would be a positive contribution. Performance Management Audit < 19 > November 2008
    • However, a number of survey respondents complained about various features of the automated evaluation form software. Respondents to the non-represented employee survey viewed the software as “clunky” or “not user friendly” by some. Several respondents had specific complaints about completing the form and submitting the information without losing portions of their work. Compliance with completion deadlines is mixed. Overall compliance with evaluation completion deadlines is very mixed, ranging from a high of 98 percent for probationary teachers to a low of 9 percent for bus drivers. Only 38 percent of licensed administrators (principals and vice/assistant principals) received their annual evaluation by the established due date in FY07-08. This may be caused in part by the newness of the licensed administrator process, vacancies and transitions in job responsibilities, and the high workload of supervisors and principals at the end and beginning of each school year. Nevertheless, given the importance of school administrators to the achievement of district goals for improved teaching and learning, higher compliance in future years would be an important goal to achieve. Evaluation form elements are inconsistent. As more is learned about the strengths and weaknesses of the newly implemented non-represented and licensed administrator evaluation processes, it may be useful to strive for more consistency in evaluation approaches for all employees at PPS. For example, the rating scales on evaluation forms range from an option of three ratings on some forms to five ratings on other forms. Also, rating descriptions on various evaluation forms can vary significantly. For example, the highest rating on different forms include “consistently exceeding”, “excels/role model”, “exceeding”, “exceeds expectations” or “outstanding”. While it may not be possible to standardize all forms given the varying types of jobs at the district, more consistency could improve the clarity of ratings and the common understanding of rating scores. More training and support needed. Many survey respondents felt that the training provided prior to implementation of the non-represented and licensed administrator process was valuable, useful, and helpful. However, it also appears that many did not attend or did not know that training was available and missed the opportunity to learn more about how to give and/or receive performance feedback. In addition to more training, it may be useful to improve web-based information on all evaluation processes so that employees and supervisors can have easy access to forms, instructions, and guidance. While significant information is available on school administrator evaluation processes, similar guidance and templates are not available for non-represented or other represented employees. Performance Management Audit < 20 > November 2008
    • NON-REPRESENTED EMPLOYEE EVALUATION Purpose and application of peer review form unclear. Many non-represented survey respondents were not aware of the existence of a peer review form. Those that had heard of the peer review process indicated that they had not used it or their supervisor decided not to employ it. Others said that there was agreement not to use the form due to the press of other work. If the peer review form is viewed as an important element of the non-represented employee evaluation, then additional training and communication is needed to ensure all employees understand the requirements and expectations of the peer review. Concern about the length and format of evaluation form. Seventy-nine percent of the survey respondents were generally satisfied with the Core Competencies contained in the evaluation tool. One respondent indicated that the new process was a fantastic effort – “the best administrative initiative I have seen delivered at PPS since I started in 2005”. However, a number of respondents had various complaints about the new form designed for the evaluation. Survey respondents thought it was too lengthy, repetitive, and cumbersome. Several recommended making the form more concise and less detailed. Goal setting sessions not fully effective. While over 84 percent of the non- represented respondents indicated that they participated in a goal setting exercise with their supervisor, the usefulness of this process was not rated highly. While about 52 percent of respondents felt that the goal setting process was useful or extremely useful, almost 37 percent were neutral about its value and 22 percent did not think it was useful. Also, 24 percent of respondent did not think the process was useful to help them understand department goals, and 35 percent felt it was not useful to help understand the district’s goals. Additional communication is needed if it is viewed important to ensure that non-represented employees understand how their specific departments contribute to the overall goals of the organization. Interest in pay for performance feature. A number of non-represented employees expressed a desire for a pay-for-performance feature in the evaluation and compensation process. While the professional literature is mixed about the value and feasibility of implementing pay for performance, some business-like services within the district might be appropriate places for pilot testing. Performance Management Audit < 21 > November 2008
    • LICENSED ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION Inadequate compliance with evaluation completion deadlines. As discussed previously, compliance with completion deadlines was relatively low for licensed administrators. While a number of factors could have affected this condition, one factor may relate to the press of workload for school and area directors and school principals at the end of the school year and the beginning of summer vacation for many principals. The number of evaluations required to be completed on average for each director is 9.25, a relatively high number of evaluations. Some thought should be given to a revised staggered schedule for principal evaluations that might stretch over several months or an abbreviated evaluation form. Limited feedback received from licensed administrators. The response rate to the licensed administrator survey was relatively low. Consequently, the level of feedback and suggestions on ways to change and improve the evaluation process was minimal. The fact that 53 percent of principals and vice/assistant principals expressed only moderate satisfaction with the evaluation process indicates that there may be more to learn from this employee group. More effort to reach out to school administrators may provide additional information on their satisfaction with the process and their ideas for improvement. Licensed administrator process not automated. Efforts should be taken to automate the licensed administrator evaluation process. Because this process was manual this year, it was difficult to track, record, and assess the completion compliance. In addition, given the relatively high workload of the participants in this process, an automated process could save time and improve compliance. SCHOOL CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEE EVALUATION Current evaluation process is outdated. The evaluation process for school office, clerical, and educational support employees has not been revised to address the desired elements of HR’s performance management initiative. While the current process is automated and on-line, it lacks a defined goal setting element, an evaluation tool aligned to job competencies, and clear performance standards. Revisions to this process may be easier to accomplish because changes can be addressed through contract administration rather than negotiation. Performance Management Audit < 22 > November 2008
    • NUTRITION EMPLOYEE EVALUATION Automating nutrition employee evaluation. Given the number of performance evaluations given to nutrition employees every year, it may save time and improve record keeping if the process was automated and included in the HR central data base. An assessment of feasibility should look at the cost and benefit of the change. CUSTODIAN EVALUATION All employees not evaluated. The Facilities Services division appropriately decided to ensure that all probationary employees received at least one evaluation in FY07-08. Accordingly, approximately 138 regular employees did not receive an evaluation last year. Facilities Services is working with the IT department to record and track evaluations and intend to give evaluations to all employees next year. Automation efforts should be coordinated with HR. BUS DRIVER EVALUATION New performance evaluation process not fully implemented. The Transportation division designed a new evaluation form for PPS bus drivers in FY07-08. However, only a small number of bus drivers received an evaluation using this new form. Managers indicated to me that they plan to finalize the form and evaluation process in FY08-09 and provide annual performance evaluations to all drivers. MAINTENANCE EVALUATION All maintenance staff did not receive evaluations. In FY07-08 only maintenance foremen received evaluations. The maintenance manager indicated that he asked each shop foreman to conduct performance evaluations of all other maintenance staff by September 30, 2008. At the completion of this report, I have not received information on the completion of these evaluations. BUS MECHANICS, WAREHOUSE WORKERS, TRUCK DRIVERS, AND TV SERVICES Lack of an evaluation process. Employees in these job classifications did not receive an evaluation. Performance Management Audit < 23 > November 2008
    • Performance Management Audit < 24 > November 2008
    • Observations about the teacher evaluation process A cademic writers believe that educational reform cannot succeed without capable, high-quality teachers. Studies have shown that teacher quality matters when it comes to how much students learn. Consequently, many believe that school districts need high quality evaluation systems to document the quality of teacher performance and to help develop and improve teaching skills. According to one writer, a conceptually sound, well-designed and properly implemented evaluation system is an essential component of an effective school district. 7 However, there is also a common belief that most existing evaluation systems in school districts, particularly those for teachers, are outdated, not useful, not legally defensible, and provide inaccurate measures of performance. “Current teacher evaluation practices are inaccurate, uninformative, and not useful. Current teacher evaluation practice has been reduced to a most innocuous bottom-level of activity that bothers participants the least. Because it is difficult to argue that no evaluation should be done, educators have decided to do the least disruptive activity and call it adequate. The benefits of good evaluation go unrealized.” 8 The current teacher evaluation process at Portland Public Schools has been in place since 1980 and has been largely unchanged for 28 years. My discussions with PPS officials and PAT union representatives reveal different views on the effectiveness of the evaluation process and how well it is conducted and administered. Although the current teacher evaluation system used at PPS is not unlike many traditional teacher evaluation systems throughout the country, my research indicates that there may be opportunities to improve its application and content that would both increase fairness and provide more support for teachers, but also increase school accountability for improved teaching and learning. I did not evaluate or assess the application and use of the current teacher evaluation process at PPS. The district and the PAT are currently in labor negotiations to develop a new teacher contract and the teacher evaluation process is one of the issues identified for negotiation. However, to provide some assistance in discussions and decisions related to possibly revising the existing system, I reviewed professional literature to: 7 Evaluating Teaching: A Guide to Current Thinking and Best Practices , edited by James H. Stronge, Corwin Press, 2006 8 Teacher Evaluation: A Comprehensive Guide to New Directions and Practices, Kenneth D. Peterson, Corwin Press, 2000 Performance Management Audit < 25 > November 2008
    • • identify the strengths and weaknesses found in traditional teacher evaluation systems like that used at PPS, and • identify practices that might improve the effectiveness of teacher evaluation practices. Implementation of traditional teacher evaluation systems. Traditional teacher evaluation processes, including the evaluation process used by PPS, follow a typical pattern. As shown below, the process begins with a goal setting or orientation event at the beginning of the year and concludes with an end of year evaluation report commenting on teacher performance and development needs. During the year, the evaluation process includes one or more classroom observations, informal and formal feedback, and post- observation conferences and interviews. If performance deficiencies are found, some teachers may also participate in a performance improvement plan of assistance. The evaluation process generally only involves the teacher and principal or supervisor unless performance deficiencies are serious enough to require union representation or central office staff support. Consistently poor performance and lack of improvement could lead to dismissal. Traditional teacher evaluation process Post observation Orientation and One or more conferences, goal setting classroom informal observations feedback Performance Evaluation improvement report with Evaluation plan when suggestions for interview needed development Traditional teacher evaluation systems as described above utilize teacher job descriptions, defined duties and tasks, and/or teacher performance standards as criteria against which to assess teacher performance. Supervisor observations are the primary Performance Management Audit < 26 > November 2008
    • source of evidence used to develop judgments about teacher performance and make assessments about how well tasks and duties are carried-out and standards are achieved. This traditional approach to teacher evaluation is not without some merits. 9 For example, the approach: • offers opportunity for valuable one-on-one discussions between the teacher and supervisor • provides an opportunity to acknowledge teacher success and professionalism, • helps establish plans for teacher growth and development. However, most of the professional literature I reviewed was critical about traditional evaluation approaches. The most frequent problems and potential results of traditional teacher evaluation systems are listed in the following table. 9 Supervision for Learning, Aseltine, Faryniarz, and Rigazio-DiGulio, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2006 Performance Management Audit < 27 > November 2008
    • 10 Problems and potential consequences of traditional teacher evaluation systems Problems Potential consequences Outdated and insufficient evaluative Meaningless evaluation results, conclusions criteria that defines good teaching and not useful, uninformative results sets performance standards Inadequate evidence to support May not be legally defensible; evaluation performance appraisal decisions; over may be artificial, unfair and incomplete reliance on classroom observations Hierarchical, one-way communication Communication not likely to be honest, lack that may lead to sanctions of trust No differentiation between novice and Inefficient use of supervisor and teacher experienced teachers time and resources Limited use of student achievement data; Lack of focus on primary goal of good too much focus on the “act” of teaching teaching: improved student achievement and learning Evaluators (supervisors) may lack Quality of evaluations may vary; teachers training, experience, and skills may not accept results Unclear link between teacher goals and Difficulty aligning teachers’ work with the school and district goals goals of school improvement plan; may frustrate collaboration Features of a modern teacher evaluation processes. My review of professional literature and academic studies on teacher evaluation identified a number of practices that may help improve the effectiveness of teacher evaluation processes. These practices may not always be appropriate for the specific conditions of all districts but they are the most commonly recommended changes in teacher evaluation in the literature that I reviewed. Increase teacher involvement in the evaluation process. One approach to gain trust in and acceptance of the evaluation process is to involve teachers more in the process of the evaluation from design through its application. Establishing a committee composed of supervisors and teachers to revise the teacher evaluation process is an appropriate step to gaining this trust. Teachers could also be directly involved in providing the type of evidence used by supervisors to assess performance such as teacher portfolios, classroom lesson 10 Various sources. See Appendix A. Performance Management Audit < 28 > November 2008
    • plans, and self-evaluations. Teachers could also be involved in peer review committees to provide input on teacher practices and to recommend professional development. Use multiple sources of evidence to document good teaching. Reliance on periodic classroom observation as the primary source of evidence to judge teacher performance has been found to have questionable validity and accuracy. Instead, many researchers suggest that multiple sources of evidence collected in various ways would provide more complete and objective insights into the unique styles Sources of information for teacher evaluation and approaches of different teachers. In addition to systematic classroom Classroom observations observations, data on student achievement, Teacher self-assessments Parent and student surveys input from parent and student surveys, and Student achievement data feedback from peer reviews could be used in Peer and team reviews the evaluation process. Teacher portfolios Samples of student work According to research, the use of student Trained evaluators achievement data and parent and student survey data in the evaluation process can introduce some degree of unfairness if not designed and implemented well. For example, a variety of factors that are outside the control of the teacher can influence achievement scores — home environment, lack of materials and support, absenteeism and poor measurement systems. Nevertheless, many believe that if properly administered and designed, student achievement data and client surveys can provide valuable insights into the assessment of teacher performance if part of multiple sources of information. Improved standards and criteria for what comprises good teaching. Significant research over the past 20 years has helped clarify and define good teaching practices. Various aspects of teacher responsibilities that improve student learning have been documented by research and studies. Consequently, it is possible to more reliably point to what Charlotte Danielson: Components teachers should know and be able to do in of Professional Practice teaching students. For example, writings by Planning and Preparation Charlotte Danielson provide one possible The Classroom Environment framework for the components of Instruction professional practice that could serve as Professional Responsibilities criteria for teacher evaluation. Performance Management Audit < 29 > November 2008
    • Use different processes for probationary, experienced, and underperforming teachers. Some researchers believe that the schedule, timing, nature, and extent of evaluations do not have to be the same for all teachers. Distinctions could be made between novice teachers, veteran teachers, and underperforming teachers. Taking a differentiated approach to evaluations could save time and focus efforts where more time is needed — new teachers and teachers with development needs. High performing, veteran teachers may not receive a formal evaluation for several years. Ensure that district and teacher goals are compatible and mutually beneficial. Teacher evaluation systems could be more directly linked to the mission of the district and the specific improvement plans of individual schools. If the primary mission of a district is to improve student teaching and learning, evaluation systems should endeavor to connect teacher performance assessment with changes and growth in learning. It is important to ensure that the teacher and district goals are compatible and that goals are valued both by the teacher and the schools. Mutually beneficial goals could make the evaluation process more meaningful and accepted. Develop technically sound evaluation system. Regardless of the various approaches taken to improve evaluation systems they should be technically sound. Specifically, according to James Stronge 11 the evaluation system should address four basic standards: • Utility — useful, informative, timely, and influential • Propriety — legal and ethically acceptable • Feasibility — efficient, viable, and easy to use • Accuracy — valid and reliable 11 Evaluating Teaching: A Guide to Current Thinking and Best Practices – edited by James H. Stronge, Corwin Press, 2006 Performance Management Audit < 30 > November 2008
    • RECOMMENDATIONS T he Portland Public School district has taken a number of steps to develop a more comprehensive approach to conducting annual employee performance appraisals. In order to continue to strengthen Performance Management at Portland Public Schools, I recommend that the Superintendent with assistance from Human Resources and other operating departments take the following additional actions to improve employee performance evaluation processes throughout the organization. Many of these recommendations reinforce and complement existing elements of HR’s employee evaluation system design. These recommendations are intended to help improve accountability for organizational performance and to support the growth and development of district employees. 1. Increase compliance with annual evaluation completion milestones. The district should strive for 100 percent compliance with established deadlines for completion of annual performance employee evaluations. Additional support from top management is needed to communicate the importance of annual goal setting, performance reviews, and employee growth and development. Executive level support is a critical factor in the successful implementation of employee evaluation throughout the district. 2. Expand the availability of online, paperless forms to more evaluation processes. Online, paperless forms help streamline the submittal and completion of evaluation forms, and improve record-keeping and compliance monitoring. Expanding the availability of paperless forms to all evaluation processes over the next few years will improve compliance, save time, and strengthen the benefits of the evaluation process. 3. Assess opportunities and desirability of standardizing the major elements of all evaluation processes. While many of the existing evaluation processes have common elements (e.g., goal setting, performance standards, and improvement plans), the formats, rating scales, application, and use of the evaluations vary considerably for various job classes. Human Resources should consider developing more common formats and elements so that supervisors and employees at all levels have similar expectations on the content, administration, and use of the annual evaluation process. Performance Management Audit < 31 > November 2008
    • 4. Clarify, streamline, and/or simplify various elements of the new non-represented and licensed administrator evaluation processes. Overall, most elements of the two new processes seemed to work as planned and anticipated. However, HR may wish to review certain features of the following items to determine if changes are warranted: a. Importance and value of the non-represented peer review b. Length and format of the non-represented form c. Alignment of individual goals with departmental and district-wide goals d. Understanding of principal leadership proficiency standards 5. Provide additional training and support for employees and supervisors. A number of non-represented employees and principals either did not attend or were not aware of various training sessions provided by HR to help implement the new evaluation processes. Additional training in traditional class format or web-based would help supervisors and employees more fully understand the purposes and requirements of the process. Additional web-based information on the non- represented evaluation process would be particularly useful. HR may also want to conduct additional follow-up with licensed administrators to probe for more of their perceptions about the usefulness, fairness, and value of the new evaluation system. 6. Consider using my observations about traditional teacher evaluation in discussions about changing PPS’s current teacher evaluation process. My observations about teacher evaluation might be useful during the upcoming discussions between PPS management and the Portland Association of Teachers. The best practices I found in the professional literature should help inform decisions about possibly revising and improving the existing process. Performance Management Audit < 32 > November 2008
    • MANAGEMENT RESPONSE Performance Management Audit < 33 > November 2008
    • Performance Management Audit < 34 > November 2008
    • APPENDICES Performance Management Audit < 37 > November 2008
    • Performance Management Audit < 38 > November 2008
    • APPENDIX A Literature Review Performance Management, School Accountability, Employee Evaluation Mike Schmoker - Results Now: How We Can Achieve Unprecedented Improvements in Teaching and Learning, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2006 Charlotte Danielson - Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1996 Richard DuFour and Robert Eaker - Professional Learning Communities at Work: Best Practices for Enhancing Student Achievement, National Education Service, 1998 Pamela D. Tucker and James H. Stronge – Linking Teacher Evaluation and Student Learning, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2005 Kenneth D. Peterson – Teacher Evaluation: A Comprehensive Guide to New Directions and Practices, Corwin Press, Inc., 2000 James M. Aseltine, et al - Supervision for Learning: A Performance-Based Approach for Teacher Development and School Improvement, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2006 Charlotte Danielson and Thomas L. McGreal – Teacher Evaluation to Enhance Professional Practice, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2000 US Office of Personnel Management – Workforce Compensation and Performance Service – A Handbook for Measuring Employee Performance: Aligning Employee Performance Plans with Organizational Goals, 2001 Christine Campbell, Michael DeArmond, Abigail Schumwinger – University of Washington Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs – From Bystander to Ally: Transforming the District Human Resources Department, April 2004 Kenneth Peterson – NASSP Bulletin, Volume 88 No.639 June 2008 – Research on School Teacher Evaluation Charlotte Danielson – Educational Leadership/February 2001 – New Trends in Teacher Evaluation James H. Stronge, et al – Evaluating Teaching: a Guide to Current Thinking and Best Practice, Corwin Press – A Sage Publications Company, 2006 Performance Management Audit < A-1 > November 2008
    • Performance Management Audit < A-2 > November 2008
    • B APPENDIX B Portland Public Schools Employee Evaluation Compliance School Year 2007-2008 Selected Employee Groups Total Total late or Form in Total on not % on GROUP Sub group PS? Due date due time done time Non-represented Executive/Chiefs No 7/31/2008 5 5 0 100% Area & HS Directors No 7/31/2008 12 2 10 17% Directors Yes 7/31/2008 22 13 9 59% Asst & Program Directors Yes 7/31/2008 26 19 7 73% Managers & Sr Managers Yes 7/31/2008 51 38 13 75% All Other Non-Represented Yes 7/31/2008 209 161 48 77% 325 238 87 73% Licensed Principals No 8/25/2008 47 16 31 34% Administrators Vice/Asst Principals No 8/25/2008 46 16 30 35% Special Program Administrators Yes 7/31/2008 15 9 6 60% (Grade 206 & 207) 108 41 67 38% PAT - Probationary Teachers Yes 12/21/07 & 03/01/08 785 774 11 99% Counselors Yes 12/21/07 & 03/01/08 44 44 0 100% Media Specialists Yes 12/21/07 & 03/01/08 8 7 1 88% Non-Classroom Certified Yes 12/21/07 & 03/01/08 141 133 8 94% 978 958 20 98% PAT - Temporary Teachers Yes 3/1/2008 135 100 35 74% Counselors Yes 3/1/2008 4 1 3 25% Media Specialists Yes 3/1/2008 2 2 0 100% Non-Classroom Certified Yes 3/1/2008 13 8 5 62% 154 111 43 72% PAT - Contract Teachers Yes 5/1/2008 971 924 47 95% Counselors Yes 5/1/2008 31 27 4 87% Media Specialists Yes 5/1/2008 14 11 3 79% Non-Classroom Certified Yes 5/1/2008 148 99 49 67% 1,164 1,061 103 91% PFTCE Educational Support Yes 4/1/2008 567 492 75 87% Office/Clerical Yes 4/1/2008 230 185 45 80% 797 677 120 85% DCU Building maintenance No 6/30/2008 74 12 62 16% SEIU Custodians No End of school year 293 155 138 53% Nutrition workers No April/May 2008 175 124 47 72% 468 279 185 60% ATU Bus drivers No End of school year 79 7 72 9% TOTAL ALL 4,147 3,384 759 82% Performance Management Audit < B-1 > November 2008
    • Performance Management Audit < B-2 > November 2008
    • APPENDIX C Feedback on NON-REPRESENTED Employee Performance Evaluation Process -- August 2008 Survey Results 1. What is your role? Director 16 13% Manager 32 25% Individual contributor 78 62% Total 126 100% 2. Did you attend the introductory training session on the new non-represented evaluation process? Yes 71 56% No 47 37% Don't remember 9 7% Total 127 100% 3. If yes, how useful was that training course in supporting the performance evaluation process? Not at all useful 2 2% 10 12% 24 30% 35 44% Extremely useful 9 11% Total 80 100% 4. Did you attend the training session on using PeopleSoft to fill out the evaluation? Yes 26 20% No 96 76% Don't remember 5 4% Total 127 100% Performance Management Audit < C-1 > November 2008
    • NON-REPRESENTED 5. If yes, how useful was that training course in supporting the performance evaluation process? Not at all useful 2 7% 1 3% 5 17% 11 37% Extremely useful 11 37% Total 30 100% 6. Did you attend the Effective Coaching and Feedback training session? Yes 24 19% No 98 77% Don't remember 5 4% Total 127 100% 7. If yes, how useful was that training course in supporting the performance evaluation process? Not at all useful 2 7% 3 11% 6 22% 9 33% Extremely useful 7 26% Total 27 100% 8. Did you attend the Empower Yourself training session? Yes 41 33% No 82 65% Don't remember 3 2% Total 126 100% 9. If yes, how useful was that training course in supporting the performance evaluation process? Not at all useful 1 2% 5 12% 15 36% 17 40% Extremely useful 4 10% Total 42 100% 2
    • NON-REPRESENTED Please provide any additional comments on the usefulness of any or all of the training provided as part of the 10. implementation of the new performance review tool. 21 Responses 11. Did you and your supervisor do formal goal setting at any time during the 2007-08 school year? Yes 107 84% No 20 16% Total 127 100% 12. If yes, how useful did you find the goal setting process? Not at all useful 4 4% 20 18% 29 26% 39 35% Extremely useful 18 16% Total 110 100% 13. Did the goal setting process help you understand your department's goals more clearly? Not at all 7 6% 21 19% 34 31% 35 32% Very much so 14 13% Total 111 100% 14. Did the goal setting process help you understand the district's goals more clearly? Not at all 12 11% 26 24% 40 36% 23 21% Very much so 9 8% Total 110 100% 3
    • NON-REPRESENTED 15. How difficult was it to agree on goals with your supervisor? Extremely difficult 1 1% 1 1% 13 12% 37 33% Not at all difficult 61 54% Total 113 100% 16. What challenges, if any, did you experience in setting goals this year? 44 Responses 17. Did you receive a formal performance evaluation from your supervisor this spring? Yes 115 91% No 12 9% Total 127 100% 18. If your response to #16 was no, why did you not receive an evaluation? Supervisor did not 4 29% complete one. I changed jobs very 2 14% recently. Other, please specify 8 57% View Responses Total 14 100% If you did not receive a formal performance evaluation this spring, please scroll to the end of the survey, read the note there, and click on the Submit button. If you did receive a performance evaluation, please continue with the survey. 19. Did you have your performance review prior to July 30? Yes 100 86% No 16 14% Total 116 100% 20. Did you complete a self-appraisal as part of the performance reveiw process? Yes 93 80% No 23 20% Total 116 100% 4
    • NON-REPRESENTED 21. How much time did your supervisor spend with you to explain and discuss the evaluation? Less than 30 minutes 25 22% 30-60 minutes 75 65% More than 60 minutes 15 13% Total 115 100% 22. How relevant are the Core Competencies to your specific role at PPS? None are relevant 0 0% 2 2% Some of the core compentencies are 34 29% relevant but others aren't 50 43% All of the core competencies are 30 26% relevant Total 116 100% If you do not consider the Core Competencies to be relevant to your position, please provide additional information 23. about why. 8 Responses 24. How meaningful was the feedback you received during the evaluation discussion with your supervisor? Not at all meaningful 2 2% 8 7% 29 25% 44 39% Extremely meaningful 31 27% Total 114 100% 25. How useful is the evaluation tool to help you identify areas for you to grow and develop? Not at all useful 4 4% 14 12% 30 26% 50 44% Extremely useful 16 14% Total 114 100% 5
    • NON-REPRESENTED 26. Did you use the peer review form and ask peers to provide input to your supervisor? Yes 43 37% No 73 63% Total 116 100% 27. If you did not use the peer review form, why not? 58 Responses 28. Do you have a clear idea of your goals for next year as a result of the evaluation? Yes 99 85% No 18 15% Total 117 100% 29. Do you have a personal development plan defined for the 2008-09 school year? Yes 76 64% No Total 118 100% Overall, how satisfied are you with the performance evaluation process as it was implemented in the 2007-08 school 30. year? Not at all satisfied 1 1% 20 17% 32 27% 49 41% Extremely satisfied 18 15% Total 120 100% If you have any additional comments about how the performance review process or tool (form) could be improved, 31. please type them here. 27 Responses If you do not supervise others, please scroll to the bottom of the survey, read the note there, then click the Submit button. If you supervise others and conducted performance reviews with any of your staff this spring, please respond to the following questions. 6
    • NON-REPRESENTED 32. How useful was the goal setting process with your employees? Not at all useful 1 2% 1 2% 9 22% 23 56% Extremely useful 7 17% Total 41 100% 33. Was the new evaluation form clear and easy to understand? Not at all clear 0 0% 2 5% 11 26% 22 52% Extremely clear 7 17% Total 42 100% 34. How would you rate the ease of use of the online PeopleSoft form? Extremely difficult to use 1 3% 3 9% 11 31% 15 43% Extremely easy to use 5 14% Total 35 100% 35. How adequate was the training and support in learning how to use the new tool (form)? Not at all adequate 0 0% 3 8% 12 33% 7 19% Can think of nothing else 14 39% I needed Total 36 100% 7
    • NON-REPRESENTED Please rate the following sections of the tool in terms of usefulness in assessing and supporting employee performance. 36. Key Job Responsibilities, Goals and Objectives Not at all useful 0 0% 1 3% 8 22% 17 46% Extremely useful 11 30% Total 37 100% 37. Core Behavioral Competencies Not at all useful 0 0% 1 3% 15 38% 17 44% Extremely useful 6 15% Total 39 100% 38. Looking Forward -- Setting Goals and Plans Not at all useful 0 0% 1 3% 10 26% 16 41% Extremely useful 12 31% Total 39 100% 39. Strengths and Areas for Development Not at all useful 1 3% 1 3% 14 36% 16 41% Extremely useful 7 18% Total 39 100% 8
    • NON-REPRESENTED 40. Development Plan Not at all useful 0 0% 4 11% 15 39% 14 37% Extremely useful 5 13% Total 38 100% Were there any areas of an employee's performance that you wanted to rate or comment on, but that did not seem to fit 41. into existing categories in the performance appraisal tool? If so, please describe. 9 Responses As a supervisor, how useful is the performance evaluation tool and process as a way to help your employees improve 42. their performance? Not at all useful 0 0% 2 6% 12 34% 11 31% Extremely useful 10 29% Total 35 100% If you would like to make any additional comments about the new performance review process or tool, please type them 43. here. 7 Responses 9
    • NON-REPRESENTED 10
    • APPENDIX D Feedback on LICENSED ADMINISTRATOR Performance Evaluation Process -- August 2008 Survey Results If you are new to PPS or in your current role for less than 6 months, please ignore this survey. We have recently completed the first round of using our new administrator performance evaluation and development planning tools. We are interested in gathering feedback on your experience with the process, tools and training that were provided. Your feedback will help us to adapt and improve this process. Thank you in advance for your time – this survey should take no more than 10 minutes to complete. 1. What is your role? Principal 32 86% Assistant Principal or 5 14% Vice Principal Total 37 100% 2. Did you attend the training in September 2007 on the new performance evaluation tool? Yes 30 81% No 7 19% Total 37 100% How well do you feel you understand the expectations for administrators described in the the 5 Leadership Proficiency 3. Standards? Not at all well 1 3% 2 5% Moderately well 19 51% 11 30% Extremely well 4 11% Total 37 100% 5 4% Total 127 100% Performance Management Audit < D-1 > Noveber 2008
    • LICENSED ADMINISTRATOR 4. How well do the following Leadership Standards describe your work as an administrator? Top number is the count of respondents selecting the option. Not at all well 2 Moderately well 4 Extremely well Bottom % is percent of the total respondents selecting the option. Leadership for results: Sets Instructional Vision, Ensures focus, alignment of SIP. 0 1 10 16 10 Models leadership 0% 3% 27% 43% 27% behaviors to build support among staff and drive fidelity of implementation Effective Teaching & Learning: Monitors & Supervises 0 1 9 16 11 Instruction, Supports 0% 3% 24% 43% 30% teachers to achieve high expectation for all students Continuous learning ethic: Evaluates the impact of instruction 0 0 10 16 10 on student learning, 0% 0% 28% 44% 28% creates culture of continuous professional growth Strong partnerships with Family & Community: Engages staff, students and 0 3 9 13 12 families to achieve 0% 8% 24% 35% 32% continuous improvement in teaching and learning Excellence in Service & Operations: Creates a safe, supportive school 0 0 10 18 9 climate, effectively 0% 0% 27% 49% 24% manages operational, technical and staff issues to promote instructional progress Do you have any additional comments about the 5 Leadership Proficiency Standards, including ideas about possible 5. changes to them? If so, please type them here. 11 Responses 6. Did you and your supervisor do formal goal setting at any time during the 2007-08 year? Yes 35 95% No 2 5% Total 37 100% 2
    • LICENSED ADMINISTRATOR If YES, how useful did you find the goal setting process? (If you and your supervisor did not do formal goal setting in 7. 2007-08, skip this question.) Not at all useful 2 6% 3 9% Moderately useful 9 26% 14 40% Extremely useful 7 20% Total 35 100% 8. What challenges, if any, did you experience in setting goals this year? 13 Responses Did your supervisor do at least one formal check-in meeting/discussion with you throughout the year to discuss your 9. progress? Yes 32 86% No 5 14% Total 37 100% 10. How useful was the check-in meeting in providing feedback on how you were doing? Not at all useful 1 3% 6 17% Moderately useful 10 29% 11 31% Extremely useful 7 20% Total 35 100% 11. Did you receive a formal performance evaluation from your supervisor this spring/summer? Yes 13 36% No 23 64% Total 36 100% If you answered No to the previous question, please scroll to the bottom of the survey, read the IMPORTANT NOTE there, then click on Submit. 3
    • LICENSED ADMINISTRATOR 12. Was your evaluation completed in a timely way (before August 25)? Yes 13 76% No 4 24% Total 17 100% 13. Did you complete a self reflection as part of the process? Yes 15 83% No 3 17% Total 18 100% 14. How useful was the self reflection as an input to the evaluation? Not at all useful 1 6% 0 0% Moderately useful 4 24% 8 47% Extremely useful 4 24% Total 17 100% 15. How much time did your supervisor spend with you to explain and discuss the evaluation? Less than 30 minutes 2 12% 30-60 minutes 13 76% More than 60 minutes 2 12% Total 17 100% 16. Did your supervisor use the rubric to illustrate examples of your performance? Yes 13 81% No 3 19% Total 16 100% 4
    • LICENSED ADMINISTRATOR 17. How helpful was the rubric as a guide to assessing your performance? Not at all helpful 1 7% 1 7% Moderately helpful 7 47% 6 40% Extremely helpful 0 0% Total 15 100% 18. Do you feel that your supervisor gained a solid understanding of your work through this process? Not at all 0 0% 2 12% Moderately so 5 29% 9 53% Very much so 1 6% Total 17 100% 19. Do you feel that the evaluation process was fair and objective? Not at all 0 0% 1 7% Moderately so 5 33% 8 53% Very much so 1 7% Total 15 100% 20. How meaningful was the feedback you received during the evaluation discussion? Not at all meaningful 0 0% 0 0% Moderately meaningful 4 27% 8 53% Extremely meaningful 3 20% Total 15 100% 5
    • LICENSED ADMINISTRATOR 21. How useful was the evaluation process to help you identify areas for you to grow and develop? Not at all useful 0 0% 2 13% Moderately useful 4 27% 8 53% Extremely useful 1 7% Total 15 100% 22. Do you have a personal development plan defined for the next year? Yes 9 47% No 10 53% Total 19 100% 23. How satisfied are you overall with the performance evaluation process? Not at all satisfied 0 0% 2 12% Moderately satisfied 8 50% 6 38% Extremely satisfied 0 0% Total 16 100% Do you have any additional comments about how the evaluation process and tool could be improved? If so, please type 24. them here. 9 Responses 6